I made a this thread specifically so you would not have it pop up on your "new posts" and you would not feel complelled to participate and I stated that at the top. Since you either cannot read or are a massochist, my hands are clean in the matter. You have dialed your own level of pain.

The more militant members of the N.R.A. and most of its leaders may be un-American.

By “militant” I don’t mean those who wish to protect recreational shooting and hunting; nor do I mean those who, like Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that there is a constitutional right to defend one’s home and family with firearms. These are respectable positions (although I am deeply unpersuaded by the second). I mean those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place.

Let me explore that for a moment. What if the SCOTUS were to decide the 2nd amendment really does allow us to take arms against our own government - people we have elected and can vote out - if we feel it is a tyranny?

First of all, who is "we"? Do people without guns get a say? If it is a majority of us, why not just use the constitutional voting process to keep that from happeningreverse the tyrrany?

If it is a minority of us, how is it constitutional for a minority to violently override the will of the majority? I recently saw a poll that said something like 44% of republicans thought a civil war might be necessary, presumably because of Obama. Does the minority of a minority group get to override the decision those of us in the majority just because they don't like that decision? Does that seem in line with the constitution to you?

If so, how does anyone think the vast majority of gun owners would respond to an armed uprising of urban, black and hispanic people on the basis that the government is systematically oppressing them?

And what are the criteria for deciding whether it is a legitimate tyranny? What is the threshold? Is it the loss of a whole amendment? Does making religious organizations pay for health insurance constitute a tyranny? How about making people provide government ID to vote? Or is it just about guns? At what point is it okay to start killing police and elected officials?

Last, if we allow that the right to violently rebel is guaranteed by the second amendment, that means Timothy McVeighWiki was innocent and executed wrongly. His attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City was his constitutionally guaranteed right. More than that, it was downright patriotic. That means Aryan NationsWiki is a legitimate organization, sanctioned and supported by the constitution and so is the KKK. It gives license to every crank and fringe hothead to execute the winner of any election the outcome of which the do not like.

This whole idea makes me ill. Even if this is what Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton had in mind, it is pure fantasy and suicidal to think it applies today.

A heartfelt "Indeed!", screwtape. The fact of the matter is that if people take up arms against their own government, that means they feel the government no longer represents them. They are outside the law. And while they may win in their revolt, that in no way means they were right to do so. It also doesn't mean they were wrong. You can't decide something like that based on who won and who lost.

If the Southern states had succeeded in their rebellion against the Union, it would not have made their efforts to preserve slavery right or just. It simply would have meant that they had succeeded in using force to separate themselves from the rest of the country.

Let me explore that for a moment. What if the SCOTUS were to decide the 2nd amendment really does allow us to take arms against our own government - people we have elected and can vote out - if we feel it is a tyranny?

First of all, who is "we"? Do people without guns get a say? If it is a majority of us, why not just use the constitutional voting process to keep that from happening?

My opinion would be that it isn't a tyranny until the constitutional voting process is null and void. And the fear is that if and when the gov't disarms the populace, the populace won't have much recourse to prevent that from happening, nor correct it after the fact.

Quote

If it is a minority of us, how is it constitutional for a minority to violently override the will of the majority? I recently saw a poll that said something like 44% of republicans thought a civil war might be necessary, presumably because of Obama. Does the minority of a minority group get to override the decision those of us in the majority just because they don't like that decision? Does that seem in line with the constitution to you?

Tough question, but remember; the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The rights of the minority are supposed to have equal weight.

Quote

If so, how does anyone think the vast majority of gun owners would respond to an armed uprising of urban, black and hispanic people on the basis that the government is systematically oppressing them?

I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy in there, but suffice it to say….it depends. Yeah, the majority of gun owners are right wing, and the majority of those could be bigots. But, since it's mere speculation, let's say it's entirely possible that the majority of gun owners would support the effort, given the right motivation.

Quote

And what are the criteria for deciding whether it is a legitimate tyranny? What is the threshold? Is it the loss of a whole amendment? Does making religious organizations pay for health insurance constitute a tyranny? How about making people provide government ID to vote? Or is it just about guns? At what point is it okay to start killing police and elected officials?

See above. It's not tyranny until elections no longer matter.

Quote

Last, if we allow that the right to violently rebel is guaranteed by the second amendment, that means Timothy McVeighWiki was innocent and executed wrongly. His attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City was his constitutionally guaranteed right. More than that, it was downright patriotic. That means Aryan NationsWiki is a legitimate organization, sanctioned and supported by the constitution and so is the KKK. It gives license to every crank and fringe hothead to execute the winner of any election the outcome of which the do not like.

As long as they're elected, it doesn't fit the definition of tyrannical.

Quote

This whole idea makes me ill. Even if this is what Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton had in mind, it is pure fantasy and suicidal to think it applies today.

My opinion would be that it isn't a tyranny until the constitutional voting process is null and void.

Do GOP efforts to purge voter rolls and inhibit voter turnout count? Do the poor and non-white people have the go-ahead to murder police and GOP officials who pass these laws? Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?

If so, How about when the SCOTUS declared GW Bush the winner? Would democrats have been within their constitutional rights to purge the SCOTUS, hang the entire Bush campaign and kill anyone who got in the way of that justice? They were in the majority, afterall.

What if we still have free elections but the choices were all rigged? Like the Simpsons episode when both candidates were aliens? Or like in reality when both candidates represent the interests of the rich? May I shoot a congressman tyrant who votes against closing corporate tax loopholes? (Please say yes)

Tough question, but remember; the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The rights of the minority are supposed to have equal weight.

I agree with all those statements as stand alone statements, but I don't think they answer my question. Your reply does not fit the context I presented. The minority do have equal weight when voting, in that each person's vote counts the same. But not in the sense that their lower vote total carries the same weight as a higher vote total. Their guy got fewer votes. They lost.

And it does not address who gets to decide. If 44% of republicans decide they cannot tolerate an Obama administration any longer, do they get to usurp the majority, kill a whole bunch of people and call it constitutional? Is that what Thomas Jefferson intended?

Yeah, the majority of gun owners are right wing, and the majority of those could be bigots. But, since it's mere speculation, let's say it's entirely possible that the majority of gun owners would support the effort, given the right motivation.

My point was not about bigotry, though I can see how it would appear to be. In my haste I was not thorough enough. My point was about perspective. I think the non-whites in this country have some legitimate grievances. And since the majority of gun fanatics are white, the idea of a minority revolt would not likely sit well, not because of prejudice necessarily, but because they do not have the same problems and so do not see the problems.

I cannot see how it would be seen as a righteous and constitutional rebellion. It would be seen as a riot. Historic precedence is on my side.

Case in point: Rodney King. The black community in LA has long had grievances against the LAPD. But the officials have ignored them. In a real sense, that is a tyranny. Government was not working for them.

Supposing they had acted in a more focused way than just burning cars and breaking windows, would they have been within their rights killing a bunch of LAPD officers, a couple of precinct captains, the chief, a few members the city board and possibly the mayor?

How would that have worked out for them? Secondary question, how would new officials be selected and would they have a different policy? If the white majority elected more of the same, then what?

Sure, but I think I made a pretty solid case as to why. And if you think it is not fantasy, please make your case. How does the Second American Civil War shake out?

And if they thought violent rebellion was the solution, why did they bother with a very sophisticated egalitarian system? They insisted on a nation of laws, not men. And insurgency is the exact opposite of that.

Thank you for responding. Before I respond to your reply directly, are you saying the second amendment is the right to violently revolt against our government?

That would depend on the definition of "our government", methinks. Currently? No. In a future, perhaps not too distant, given the practices of the current and former regimes we've been having of late? Maybe.

My opinion would be that it isn't a tyranny until the constitutional voting process is null and void.

Quote

Do GOP efforts to purge voter rolls and inhibit voter turnout count? Do the poor and non-white people have the go-ahead to murder police and GOP officials who pass these laws?

Nope, not yet.

Quote

Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?

Yup.

Quote

If so, How about when the SCOTUS declared GW Bush the winner? Would democrats have been within their constitutional rights to purge the SCOTUS, hang the entire Bush campaign and kill anyone who got in the way of that justice? They were in the majority, afterall.

I think I know where you're going with this, as I've seen your argument before. And, it's not without validity. Luckily, cooler heads did prevail, violence was adverted, and the republic continued to function in the way it was designed. For awhile anyway.

Quote

What if we still have free elections but the choices were all rigged? Like the Simpsons episode when both candidates were aliens? Or like in reality when both candidates represent the interests of the rich? May I shoot a congressman tyrant who votes against closing corporate tax loopholes? (Please say yes)

Tough question, but remember; the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The rights of the minority are supposed to have equal weight.

I agree with all those statements as stand alone statements, but I don't think they answer my question. Your reply does not fit the context I presented. The minority do have equal weight when voting, in that each person's vote counts the same. But not in the sense that their lower vote total carries the same weight as a higher vote total. Their guy got fewer votes. They lost.

I didn't say anything about the weight of their votes, only their rights. And, possibly, if their rights are being tyrannically trampled, they should revolt. Or move to Texas.

Quote

And it does not address who gets to decide. If 44% of republicans decide they cannot tolerate an Obama administration any longer, do they get to usurp the majority, kill a whole bunch of people and call it constitutional? Is that what Thomas Jefferson intended?

Again, I think I know your argument here. You (and most sane people) would much rather them organize and get their vindication through the voting process. I don't disagree.

Quote

My point was not about bigotry, though I can see how it would appear to be. In my haste I was not thorough enough. My point was about perspective. I think the non-whites in this country have some legitimate grievances. And since the majority of gun fanatics are white, the idea of a minority revolt would not likely sit well, not because of prejudice necessarily, but because they do not have the same problems and so do not see the problems.

Hence the comment about motivations.

Quote

I cannot see how it would be seen as a righteous and constitutional rebellion. It would be seen as a riot. Historic precedence is on my side.

Case in point: Rodney King. The black community in LA has long had grievances against the LAPD. But the officials have ignored them. In a real sense, that is a tyranny. Government was not working for them.

Supposing they had acted in a more focused way than just burning cars and breaking windows, would they have been within their rights killing a bunch of LAPD officers, a couple of precinct captains, the chief, a few members the city board and possibly the mayor?

How would that have worked out for them? Secondary question, how would new officials be selected and would they have a different policy? If the white majority elected more of the same, then what?

How did it work out anyway? More of the same? If so, perhaps they (the oppressed) need to learn how to educate and motivate the majority. Or move to Texas.

As long as they're elected, it doesn't fit the definition of tyrannical.

I think you can still have elections under a tyranny. Iran has elections, but I think their government is a tyranny.

George Bush was elected (once). He is the precipitator of the Patriot Act. I consider that to be a tyrannical piece of legislation. He did a lot of other tyrannical shit to.

I think Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers (I do not count the Benghaziacs among them) is tyrannical. So is his continuation of other Bush era policies. Yet he was elected twice.

Many states have been gerrymandered to the point where even though the majority of people voted democratic, more republicans hold office. I see that as a form of tyranny.

44% of republicans (probably more) think Obama is a tyrant who may need to be deposed for doing what the majority of voters want.

And perhaps they're correct. But until Obama, or Jeb Bush, or whoever proclaims the Constitution invalid, we can still use the power of the vote, as defined in our laws and constitution, to affect change.

Quote

How does the Second American Civil War shake out?

I don't know, nor do I pretend to know. I do know, however, that if the 44% of your Repubs organized, right now, they could inflict considerable damage, and probably take over Texas.

Quote

And if they thought violent rebellion was the solution, why did they bother with a very sophisticated egalitarian system? They insisted on a nation of laws, not men. And insurgency is the exact opposite of that.

Only if the laws are just, and don’t limit the life, liberty, and pursuit of my happiness. Or contradict the entirety or spirit of the Constitution. Yeah, it's probably a tad more complicated than that, but I hope you see my general point. We're not going to have a vote to overthrow the gov't, because if we could, it wouldn't be a tyranny.

I'm well aware that this country is moving dangerously toward a tyrannical form of government, with the Patriot Act, Guantanemo, drone strikes, SuperPACs, et al….and there are plenty of injustices in it. And no, I don't think our current status requires armed revolt, because, alledgedly, we still have the power with the people, in the form of votes and elections. But, that's not to say that it would never be required.

As far as who gets to decide? Hell, I don't exactly know, but my guess it will be whomever gets enough of an organization together, whether tightly knit or fractured, right or wrong, and actually overthrows the gov't.

Without the cooperation of the military, there is no way any group of civilians armed with the 2nd amendment will be able to overthrow the government. No matter how many handguns and automatic weapons and pressure cooker bombs they have stockpiled. They might get away with burning up a neighborhood and even terrorizing a city.

But the US government would not even blink. With air support, rocket launchers and a few serious missiles, it would look like the short-lived siege in Les Miserables.

Let me explore that for a moment. What if the SCOTUS were to decide the 2nd amendment really does allow us to take arms against our own government - people we have elected and can vote out - if we feel it is a tyranny?

It's amazing how this is, essentially, about race. What else can it be? Given the substantial cross-over of the subset of Americans who proclaim gun rights against tyranny and the subset of Americans who live in the Confederate South, they fought a war of "Northern aggression" to preserve their constitutional right to slavery. I guess the modern tyranny crowd are saying that whoever wins a war wins the argument. Isn't it interesting that this kind of talk only becomes super-heated when a black man is president? Civil War 2?

First of all, who is "we"? Do people without guns get a say? If it is a majority of us, why not just use the constitutional voting process to keep that from happeningreverse the tyrrany?

They tyranny crowd doesn't recognize the established legal, judicial and constitutional processes. They fought a war over it. That's how they believe you get to decide changes in our society -- whomever wins the war, wins the argument.

If it is a minority of us, how is it constitutional for a minority to violently override the will of the majority? I recently saw a poll that said something like 44% of republicans thought a civil war might be necessary, presumably because of Obama. Does the minority of a minority group get to override the decision those of us in the majority just because they don't like that decision? Does that seem in line with the constitution to you?

In the Civil War, the minority were the Confederates. The population of the North was about twice that of the South, if I recall correctly. Are homosexuals just a side-show since the words homosexual, gay or lesbian didn't appear within the Constitution and, therefore, something that they won't fight a war over?

However, the right of women to vote wasn't necessarily excluded by the Constitution but an amendment was added to specifically grant that right. And the women of America didn't feel the need to bear arms or bare arms in order to accomplish it. Women are in the majority of the country (though not necessarily at that time).

So, again, since homosexuals and women do not equate to race and/or "black", this is a racial issue, quite plainly.

If so, how does anyone think the vast majority of gun owners would respond to an armed uprising of urban, black and hispanic people on the basis that the government is systematically oppressing them?

No. When people can still otherwise go on about their daily lives without suffering otherwise (lack of shelter, food, work, etc), they will be pissed but not uprise. The Revolutionary War wasn't really about tea.

And what are the criteria for deciding whether it is a legitimate tyranny? What is the threshold? Is it the loss of a whole amendment? Does making religious organizations pay for health insurance constitute a tyranny?

It's a good question, but one that will diminish in relevance if an attempt to overthrow doesn't occur. It will diminish because the "white" part of society is becoming progressively and predominantly beige, olive and mocha, not to mention Asian. And they are everywhere, so these old "white" guys are going to be fighting their neighbors to do the death. Neighbors fighting each other is just "mayhem".

Guns are the only thing in the Constitution specifically mentioned. Gays, hispanics, voting, etc, are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (the original version), so therefore, this is about guns, but only as a way of appealing to the masses. It's really about race.

Last, if we allow that the right to violently rebel is guaranteed by the second amendment, that means Timothy McVeighWiki was innocent and executed wrongly. His attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City was his constitutionally guaranteed right. More than that, it was downright patriotic.

Correct. Americans haven't suffered war on our soil since 1812. We have no idea what war or acts of war actually look and feel like. This is also a problem that lawyers and social movements have -- often the protagonist is hardly the person you want to defend as the poster child for your cause.

(Note: Although on the day of September 11, I instantly thought that the attacks were an act of war. It was only because I assumed a foreign government could have coordinated such an event -- one without personal profit. After learning who was responsible and how it was executed, I realized it was just a criminal action by those who were insane. Essentially, Osama bin Laden was a more masterful planner than Timothy McVeigh.)

That means Aryan NationsWiki is a legitimate organization, sanctioned and supported by the constitution and so is the KKK.

And they are, but lack of popularity keeps them out of control. We are the tyranny preventing their leadership, well, at least according to The Experts in Tyranny (aka NRA). But the NRA doesn't want the Aryan Nation to be the poster child for its cause. At least they are smart enough for that, but as they continue down this path, sooner or later someone will bring up the KKK. It's going to happen.

However, when they focus on the word tyranny, which appears nowhere in the Constitution, they do not realize that their own actions are tyrannical. They do not perceive a reason for the legal processes we have in place. First, they came for ...

This whole idea makes me ill. Even if this is what Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton had in mind, it is pure fantasy and suicidal to think it applies today.

What those men had in mind was representation and elected government, not a monarchy. The tyranny wasn't in being governed, it was in governing without representation, without election, without change. They very things those men fought for are exactly the things that the NRA is against.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

To put some context on Second Amendment gun rights, one of the reasons the American Revolution was successful is because of individual landowners who were able to ambush British troops again and again. And while the militia was not very good, there were some battles that wouldn't have been won without them. The point was that having armed Americans would go a long way towards preventing a foreign invasion or domestic uprising by those who saw the new republic as a threat. I don't think they (or at least most of them) ever seriously saw it as giving license to Americans to overthrow the government through force, especially not over a lost election or because they didn't like the policies of a given administration/congress.

And the people that say the winner gets to set the agenda conveniently forget that principle as soon as they are out of power.

That's why they are still fighting the Civil War, still against the civil rights movement, still can't believe we lost the Vietnam War, and still can't accept that Obama is the president--even after he won a second election.

Indeed, and that fact is no more clearly demonstrated than by the federal government's response to the Whiskey RebellionWiki, two years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights went into law.

Furthermore, Shays' Rebellion Wiki, which happened a year before the Philadelphia Convention, was put down by a militia. It really puts this whole Second Amendment debate into perspective.

My reading of those events is that we should take better care of our military veterans. These people are sometimes traumatized, always trained, usually armed and often pissed off. We never learn, though, do we?

Indeed, and that fact is no more clearly demonstrated than by the federal government's response to the Whiskey RebellionWiki, two years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights went into law.

Furthermore, Shays' Rebellion Wiki, which happened a year before the Philadelphia Convention, was put down by a militia. It really puts this whole Second Amendment debate into perspective.

So, you are saying that the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to have guns in order to fight off other citizens who have guns and wish to rebel? Besides the absurd madness of that logic, where does one cross the line from simple rebellion to civil war?

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Why not? Legal, deserving citizens were kept from their right to vote. And as you pointed out, even minority groups are supposed to have equal rights. They did not receive their equal rights to vote. Why do you make an exception for them when you explicitly describe their situation as one where you would condone the execution of governmental agents?

Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?

Yup.

See above. In 2012 we had villains in the governors’ mansions in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin (to name just three) who purged voter rolls before the election. They moved voting machines from precincts that were unlikely to vote for their preferred candidate to make voting more onerous and time consuming.

This all seems to fit your criteria. It seems to me that by your interpretation of the 2ndA, citizens of those states had a constitutional right to storm the capitals and remove the tyrants. If you disagree with my conclusion, please explain why.

I think I know where you're going with this, as I've seen your argument before. And, it's not without validity. Luckily, cooler heads did prevail, violence was adverted, and the republic continued to function in the way it was designed. For awhile anyway.

That does not answer my question. This appears to be a situation that exactly fits the criterion you laid out above. The SCOTUS made void the will of the majority of voters. How does that not justify assaulting DC, purging the SCOTUS, imprisoning the Bush campaign and installing the dully elected administration? It seems to completely fit your constitutional interpretation.

I am not trying to be hyperbolic. I honestly do not understand your position. You say the requirement is X, and then when I provide examples of X, you disagree but do not really explain why.

Of course there will be consequence. That is a trivial and does not answer the question. I have proposed what I feel is a realistic view of tyranny and how it would operate. And you have not really given a response. If you are not going to participate, then please say so. I’ve spent a lot of time with these posts and if you are not going to give them serious consideration, I’d rather just drop it.

I didn't say anything about the weight of their votes, only their rights. And, possibly, if their rights are being tyrannically trampled, they should revolt.

But that is not the context of what we were talking about. It is answering a question I’ve not asked. I wanted to know who gets to decide when to revolt. I pointed out that a minority of a minority right now sorta-kinda want to revolt because they think we are living under a tyranny. I think they are just sore losers. You seem to disagree with them. Yet you seem to think that in principle they should be guaranteed the ability to form an insurrection. I don’t understand. Your views do not seem coherent. Please help me out. Fill in the blanks.

How did it work out anyway? More of the same? If so, perhaps they (the oppressed) need to learn how to educate and motivate the majority.

I don’t think that really addresses the question. You seem to be arguing against your own point. The obvious answer, from a pro-gun perspective I think, is to say they got more of the same because they didn’t murder their elected officials. Had they done what the constitution guarantees – violently rebel – they would have unshackled their chains. Instead, they continue under tyranny to this day.

I say, in a democracy revolt is unacceptable. Sure, there are more than a few politicians and media personalities I would like to set on fire. I fantasized for 6 years about an uprising that ended in the Bush administration hanging from the Capital Building. But that cannot happen. It is a rejection of the rules. It is a return to barbarism. And so are all these 2ndA fantasies that the pro-gun crowd has about “watering the Tree of Liberty”.

You seem to hold two opposing positions simultaneously. It seems obvious that you don’t want a revolt. At least, you don’t want them to revolt. Them, being anyone who isn’t you. So you want that right for yourself, for when you think it is necessary. But that’s the problem with saying that the constitution ensures the right to revolt in principle. You don’t get to pick who will or won’t revolt.

So the questions remain. What are the circumstances that demand a revolt and who gets to decide? I thought you were clear on that, but you have rejected every scenario that I think meets your criteria. So I’m confused.

And perhaps they're correct. But until Obama, or Jeb Bush, or whoever proclaims the Constitution invalid, we can still use the power of the vote, as defined in our laws and constitution, to affect change.

Ah. So, it’s not just about voting. The constitution must be declared invalid.

The despot must come on the TeeVee, stand on the desk in the Oval Office, tear the Bill of Rights into pieces, while cackling maniacally, and then look into the camera and say “The constitution is OVER!”

After that, all the god-loving, gun-toting patriots will take that as their go-ahead. They will assemble and march on Washington DC, while singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. They will have to shoot a small cadre of private guard loyal to the Tyrant, but most of the police and military will be on their side. Ted Nugent himself will personally use an M-60 that has been made into an electric guitar to bayonet the Tyrant. He will then play the national anthem on his gun/axe, with the despot's viscera dangling from the tuning keys.

Michael Bay should direct that.

Of course, that’s not going to happen. None of it. Because it’s all fantasy. All the savvy tyrants know that you don’t need to declare the BoR dead to destroy it. They just need to carve out enough exceptions to make it completely useless.

Rights can be whittled away to nothing but still be technically on the books. They’re doing it to abortion. They’ve done it to our communications. They’ve done it to due process and habeas corpus. No tyrant had to declare anything invalid. They just had to tell us it was for security, and we begged for more. Tyranny can thrive by making people think they have rights. It is so much simpler to conquer that way than to rub their faces in it.

The pro-gun folks I have heard from have not thought about this in anything approaching a realistic way. They’ve not considered what tyranny really is. And I don’t think they really want to. It’s a convenient and rather self-aggrandizing justification for them keeping their guns, which is all they really want. They have no intention of actually revolting. Pussies.

Nor have they considered the ramifications of a guaranteed right of revolution. It means anyone can do it.

We're not going to have a vote to overthrow the gov't, because if we could, it wouldn't be a tyranny.

But we can’t do it now. The repubs right now think Obama is a secret muslim communist fascist trying to destroy America and they cannot vote him out. Of course, they cannot do that because they lost the election. But they don’t care about that detail. I’ve heard and read people say they lost the election because Obama rigged it. This is like a religious belief to them. There is no evidence that would change their minds.

I’m trying to get you to see that your perspective is a dangerous one. You want a principle that is dangerous specifically because it is so subjective and open to interpretation and you cannot control it.

As far as who gets to decide? Hell, I don't exactly know, but my guess it will be whomever gets enough of an organization together, whether tightly knit or fractured, right or wrong, and actually overthrows the gov't.

Well, that’s a recipe for total mayhem, isn’t it? That is a total disregard for the rule of law. It is anarchy. That’s where the Second Amendment, as interpreted by many, lands you.

I'll attempt to reply as soon as possible, but it may be as long a timeframe, or longer than your's was, as I'm about to leave for a weeklong vacation, and dont anticipate participating here via computer. Phone maybe.

Anyway, let me ask you one question before I go.

At what point would you, senor screwtape, consider armed, violent revolt to be justifiable, if not suicidal?

At what point would you, senor screwtape, consider armed, violent revolt to be justifiable, if not suicidal?

It is a very difficult question. I have no basic guideline I can think of that would be an air tight, works every time kind of criterion. In a lot of ways, I think the latest verison of the FISA act, the Patriot Act, the pro-corporate rulings of the SCOTUS and the wholesale purchace of congress by the wealthy are justification. So, I sort of think we if we were to revolt, it should have already happened.

But I do not see how that revolt could have worked. Setting aside the probabilities of success, you go to DC, kill some congress people, all the supreme court justices and then...what? Rewrite the constitution? Keep the constitution and call for general elections? How do you do that? How do you keep the fringe elements from taking over your revolution? You know, usually the people who start the revolution are not the ones in power at the end of it. Why should anyone listen to you? You're not the king or the president. You've no authority other than your gun.

And do you also have to oust the state governments? How do you do that?

It's a mess. And that is why I think the idea that the second amendment is meant to protect the "revolutionary option" is just fantasy. It cannot work.

You know what using force to overthrow the government (be it ever so justified) will accomplish? It'll tell everyone that they can use force to overthrow whatever government gets set up in its place. So I can guarantee that it won't be the peace-minded people who just want the Constitution restored in charge. It'll be the nutjob Christian radicals who decide to establish the Theocratic States of America, or something like that.

The main reason the American Revolution succeeded[1] is because it wasn't an internal revolution. It was a revolution against an external authority, the British Empire, which had effectively locked the American colonists out of having any say over their own affairs.